Tumgik
#nuclear stuff
eggmeralda · 1 year
Text
threads (1984) is ruining my life and I still haven't even watched it so to take my mind off it I watched an episode of coronation street. and guess what the very first conversation they had was about
4 notes · View notes
sigmadecay · 2 years
Note
Ok no sleep for me before work so can I have rambles about the Tammiku incident please?
Hi Isaac!! Thanks for the question :3
So I didn’t know anything about this before you asked about it, so I had to do some research before answering—for anyone following along, the Tammiku incident was not a reactor accident, it was an incident in which a family in Estonia got exposed to radioactive material unwittingly. Continuing under the cut.
So, the basic timeline of this incident from what I can gather is, these three brothers broke into what seems like a junkyard to collect scrap metal that they could sell back for a profit. During the course of the expedition, one of the brothers grabbed a small canister for some reason and pocketed it, and then threw it in the kitchen drawer when he got home.
Now, I got some issues with this whole thing, but for once, I don’t have an issue with the victim. A lot of the exposure stories I rant about involve bad lab practice (see the demon core at Los Alamos) or intentional withholding of information (see the radium girls).
There were fences, but they were only 1.5 meters high and easy to jump. They broke the rest of the locks, and there were very few areas that were armed with alarms. Somebody fucked something up somewhere—either a canister of Cesium-137 should not have been in that junkyard, or that junkyard should have been storing the nuclear waste appropriately. I have no idea which one it was. But nuclear waste needs to be disposed of under layers of cement and lead, and it wasn’t.
When that man pocketed that little cylinder, he received a dose of acute radiation poisoning that killed him in 12 days. By keeping it in his house, he exposed his entire family. And this wasn’t his fault! It was an accident! It looked like a normal metal canister. Like, he kept it in his jacket pocket by his hip, right? His entire hip and thigh on that side became necrotic. He lost the use of both legs. His intestines were a mess. The surrounding homes had to be evacuated!!! Like this was fucking gross mismanagement!!!!!
2 notes · View notes
mauri0907 · 4 months
Text
Tumblr media
A little silly I made 🤭
"Plutonium has a very candy-like taste. It’s very sour, though not overly so, and it is equally sweet. The thing is, I really don’t think it tastes like pear. It definitely tastes like an artificially flavored pear candy, but I can’t find even a slight bit of natural-tasting pear. It isn’t bad, in fact it is quite tasty, but if you’re worried that a pear flavored energy powder would be weird because you don’t like pears, you’ve got nothing to worry about. It’s much more like a fruity sucker whose flavor you can’t quite put your finger on. The one drawback is that the astringent attribute of caffeine is much more apparent here than in Radium, but thankfully the bitterness doesn’t last very long at all and fades away to leave a pleasantly sweet aftertaste."
0 notes
sneep-snarp · 2 years
Text
Tumblr media Tumblr media
I can be trusted with this knowledge
0 notes
theminecraftbee · 2 years
Text
my favorite thing about the "iskall is tubbo's dad" bit is that, as best i can tell, this is the one case of family dynamics having absolutely nothing to do with the fandom. iskall and captain sparklez and tubbo were just hanging out and they declared themselves as tubbo's dad as a joke and iskall specifically is the one who hasn't let it go. every time he catches sight of tubbo he goes "MY SON :D". tubbo shows up randomly in his singleplayer vault hunters and he's like "my beloved son". tubbo says something on twitter and iskall goes "my kid". and he's like. the ONE GUY pushing this. i have seen surprisingly little fandom content of this one. i think tubbo just nods and goes along with it. iskall though? iskall has adoption papers signed on his wall. i'm not sure tubbo even signed them. iskall may have forged that. everyone's just going with it. it's really funny to me,
2K notes · View notes
carlyraejepsans · 2 months
Note
I do wonder how many people who consider soriel problematic don't see frans as problematic (which it's arguably even more problematic given Frisk's approximate age). Like, I personally do consider age gaps icky at times, but in the end soriel is between adults so it's none of my business, there's nothing morally wrong with it. But, like I really would love to hear what that kind of age gap haters has to say about frans
not many anymore i guess. that idea (sans and frisk are both 18ish) was very widespread early in the fandom, but it's gotten debunked pretty clearly multiple times and eventually like. either faded into obscurity, or morphed into "i aged them up". people know that frisk is a child. if they still ship it (and don't age frisk up either) it's because they frankly don't care about the problematic aspect of it. I've found it's kind of inescapable with japanese fanartists. at least all the "big ones" i know. ya just gotta arm yourself with the best blacklist you can and hope the filters don't shit themselves
but anyway, to go back to your questions, people who deem soriel problematic nowadays either like some other sans ship (like him and grillby. or him and napstablook????? apparently). they don't think he's frisk aged, more early 20s, so they do say he has a "mother and son relationship" with tori, and thus a "big brother relationship" with frisk. better make sure your found family follows the nuclear structure!!!
85 notes · View notes
alwaysalreadyangry · 9 months
Text
very interesting to me that this summer we have Oppenheimer - big budget anti-nuclear film, making a record-breaking amount of money at the box office already for a number 2 opener, selling out images everywhere - and also that in Asteroid City we see nuclear tests happening in the background as a form of bleak humour - like, these characters are not going to be OK twenty years down the line. The film assumes we know how bad this is and lets us work it out ourselves... But it's still there. Made me pull a horrified face, like - oh god.
As nuclear treaties die and nuclear weapons proliferate I'm serious when I say that we do need more mass culture about how the bomb will kill us all. Keeping everyone fucking terrified of these things - reminding people that they exist and are terrifying weapons of mass death and genocide - is unironically a political good. How do we do this in a way that isn't exploitative? I don't know. There's been so much discussion of Oppenheimer not showing the Japanese and Korean dead, of it not showing the terrible effects on the native Los Alamos population or the population of the Pacific who were poisoned by nuclear testing. But I'm not sure it's better to introduce, say, a group of Japanese people just to watch them die in agony, especially as the film is about how disconnected people like Oppenheimer were from the mass death they caused. He can't even look at the photos. He's a coward. The film knows it. But it also enacts his looking away. For good and for ill. I don't know the answer! I'm not dismissing people who find it disgusting how it looks away! I'm also not dismissing people who would find the opposite exploitative and disgusting too!
an interesting response to it has been that we get anti-nuclear groups both praising the film and saying it doesn't go far enough to show the true horrors... We need everyone in the chain of command to remember that we need to keep these fuckers unexploded, untested, undeployed. Popular art and discourse can help with this. Is it an artist's responsibility? I don't know. If that's your chosen topic, maybe. How do we do it without exploiting the dead. Is a question you can ask.
276 notes · View notes
goatpaste · 2 days
Note
Heyyy, do you have any jjba ocs? If sooo can we see em?
i dOOO i love my jojo ocs :))
i have a good handful of them hehe, but heres a few lil sketches of them :3
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
60 notes · View notes
razmerry · 5 months
Text
Tumblr media
can the mediator of vengeanceclan really fall in love with a kittypet?...
136 notes · View notes
kittykatninja321 · 1 month
Text
I went “I’m not into this but let’s hear them out” on one too many omegaverse fics and now I have thoughts and opinions and headcanons and shit. Horrifying. Please be careful it could happen to you
40 notes · View notes
Text
Tumblr media
when the place is best left shunned and uninhabited! 😳
(rbs > likes)
326 notes · View notes
clouds-of-wings · 1 year
Text
Power Metal reddit currently has a discussion about Nuclear Blast, about what has changed with them and why, and man I have learned a lot of disturbing facts about what has happened there in the past 5 years. Someone posted an in-depth investigative article about it (from November 2021), which you should read if you speak German and are interested, otherwise or if it's too long here are the main points...
If you're into Nightwish, Sabaton, Blind Guardian etc., this is relevant information.
In 2018, the French Believe Music, which is a large corporation that mainly specializes in digital distribution, became majority owner of NB
Believe is not really interested in physical media like CDs and vinyls even though the people who worked at NB told their new corporate overlords that metal fans like physical media, both because many fans of especially the oldest and most successful bands are 50+ and because it's more ingrained in the subculture. Believe doesn't care and doesn't listen. They have their experiences from pop and hip-hop, where phone-based streaming subscriptions are the norm, and that's all they want to know. They are also ignoring printed magazines and don't advertise there much anymore.
Less focus on physical media means that bands now earn less, that they rank less highly in album charts, which in turn means that they lose negotiation power when they try to plan tours and negotiate with venues etc., because they "look" less successful
Believe has been dealing with this by signing mainly bands that are easy to market digitally and ending co-operations with bands that aren't, even ones that had been with NB for decades (like Rage and Nile, who went to Napalm)
The personal cooperation between bands and NB has really suffered, everything is more profit-oriented and impersonal, a lot of budgets have been decreased and the real decisions are made by Believe in Paris, not by any specific NB team
Believe has been stock market traded since 2021. Their stock value went down at first, was at about the price it had started out at when the article was written - I looked it up and in March 23 it's down 40% from its original value. Ouch.
The original founder of NB started a new label, Atomic Fire, and took "Amorphis, Helloween, Opeth, Sonata Arctica, Meshuggah, Primal Fear, Agnostic Front, Rise Of The Northstar, Silver Lake, White Stones and Michael Schenker Group" with him, also because Believe didn't really do much to keep many of these bands
It's certainly interesting to learn about, also because I had already wondered if NB, and some of their bands, had intentionally taken a more "commercial" approach in recent years, but I didn't know about the Believe thing. I thought it maybe had something to do with losses from the pandemic or something. Turns out they have a new owner.
245 notes · View notes
nucleqr · 6 months
Text
i decided to go back to my old save one last time just to see the ending where karlach chooses not to go to the hells because fuck me i guess
Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media Tumblr media
101 notes · View notes
woosh-floosh · 11 months
Text
Tumblr media
comic about the mundanity of intrusive thoughts
170 notes · View notes
kashilascorner · 1 year
Text
Tumblr media
👀
272 notes · View notes
theskyexists · 3 months
Text
There are many reasons to not go in for nuclear power and some reasons to go in for it after all.
Against:
1. It takes so many damn years to build. We'll be 20 years on and far past our carbon budget. That HUGE (they are insanely expensive) amount of money could have been spent on something more scalable. Nuclear is not scalable. Wind and solar are extremely scalable (and cheaper every day). One reason is that renewable plants (e.g a mill) are small and a repeated construction. Expertise for constructing renewables is widely available, nuclear plant construction expertise is in short supply. Counter (a bit weak): even if it takes ages to build, still, we're not on schedule for non-fossil fuel use anyway, so it will probably unfortunately still be relevant in twenty years.
2. A nuclear plant is a national security risk. One: in times of war. 2: in times of natural disaster. No counter to that except: surely war won't be THAT bad and the failsafes will always be enough.
3. Sourcing the concrete, steel and uranium that goes into such a plant isn't good for the environment. Nor is uranium renewable. Current stocks and use would provide us with 130 years of energy production. Build more plants, that number goes down. Counter: producing any power plant requires mining and transport - coal plants and renewables do too, for example.
4. Nuclear waste is a non-negligible problem. There are (war) incentives NOT to reduce waste. Even when waste is minimised, waste remains. Highly dangerous waste can kill people for longer than any society on earth has ever survived. 500.000 years... So no society can reasonably take responsibility for it. When nuclear waste is stored and then spills (as has happened in Germany) the state must pay billions in taxes to clean it up. Storage is difficult. There are NO permanent storage sites ready in all of Europe. There's about 180 plants now that have ran for decades. No permanent storage. If a company is made responsible for a nuclear plant, they tend to pay out to their shareholders one year and claim not to be able to take care of the waste for fear of bankruptcy the next - or they've already declared bankruptcy. Literally happened here. There are no incentives to deal responsibly with the waste for companies. Germany is projected to have to pay hundreds of billions of euros for permanently storing all the waste they've still got lying around at interim sites. Once again, money which might have been spent on scalable renewable production. 500.000 years... this a storage solution must last for 500.000 years. Ever seen concrete last so long... ?
5. We're seeing nuclear crowd out renewables RIGHT NOW IN REAL TIME in politics in the Netherlands and the UK. The money (and project managemeny time) really cannot be spent twice.
For:
6. Fossil fuels have done way more damage to the environment so far. Nuclear is preferable. In fact, 20% of European electricity and 10% of total energy is provided by nuclear power plants. 180. Plants. All renewables combined provide 17%. No real counter to that: they really do produce a lot of electricity without emitting greenhouse gases! Importantly: they don't need a lot of space. (Nuclear on the whole causes about as many greenhouse gases as wind energy equivalent and even slightly less than solar. Forty times less than coal.)
7. Nuclear is a proven way to produce a LOT of power. Weak counter: this makes it a liability in the electricity grid and incentivises less maintenance to minimise downtime (if no other plants can take over - generally not if they're too big. This makes them unreliable, just like renewables). Counter to that counter: much smaller (scalable) plants are being developed. Counter to that counter: they're experimental. The thorium reactors thay produce shorter lived waste are also experimental. I.e. it will take decades before we can build operational versions. (BUT! there's an ENORMOUS amount of thorium on earth, which is extremely important. Waste is much less problematic and meltdown impossible)
8. Nuclear plants that are not traditional baseload only plants and have load following capabilities can play a role in managing the ups and downs of renewables on the grid. Counter: even when built for this purpose, it's impossible to make enough money to pay for the construction and management and deconstruction and waste management by only running these plants as buffer. This is a problem because companies are asked to construct the plants, not the state. Counter 2: in a hybrid system with renewables the grid operator actually has to PAY OFF (millions) the nuclear plant to stop it producing so much. It's a liability in a hybrid system with renewables.
Final conclusion:
CURRENT nuclear power plant construction does not play well with the transition to renewables because there is no way in this financial system to use its production as a buffer, the state cannot produce the plants because there is a lack of expertise, companies cannot afford to run the plant as buffer and cannot be trusted and ideologically and politically nuclear power is proposed as an alternative to renewables instead of a complement which cuts into the much-needed financial resources necessary for renewable expansion. It is slow to build and badly scalable. We need speed and scalability considering our climate deadline. There is no permanent solution for waste and takes billions of euros to store right now already. Uranium is a scarce and non-renewable resource. Existing plants impede the transition to renewables (there is no need). They form a liability for continued production when it comes to short term production for the grid when needing maintenance and long term liability for energy production when they need to be decommissioned (France is dependent for 3/4ths on many plants that must be decommissioned at the same time). Nonetheless, existing plants are preventing a large amount of carbon emissions. Nuclear can be a useful element to the energy mix, and requires a lot less space than renewables. If innovations in scalable, smaller plants with increasingly better business cases, faster build times and ability to offload production to each other, there may be serious synergy with renewables. Still, these will be useful for 50-100 years until uranium runs out. Problematic, not just because it leaves us with expertise and infrastructure that will have no fuel, but also because we need to transition FAST and it's uncertain in how many years this technology will be operational. Thorium would be a solution to a lot of problems, but that is also decades away from operation. Putting money into research and test reactors is a priority. Decommissioning existing plants early would be stupid even if it would remove their contributions to transition intertia and the as of yet unsolved and increasing waste storage problem.
35 notes · View notes